Well, when Metsie spoke said….

“They take the KNOWN Equations and then throw in a few made up calculations to fill in the holes of the Physics equations they don’t know with things they can’t prove to balance the equation and call it an answer….”

….. I couldn’t help but think of Richard Pryor sitting in front of his computer monitor when he only got about 99 percent of the component breakdown of kryptonite – he was so perplexed and determined to re-create it that he just threw in his own stuff to make up for what the formula lacked. The picture of somebody sitting in front of his or her modern PC having the same problem with a saber formula was just so strikingly similar in my mind that it even went down to the dumbfounded expression on Richard Proyer’s face.

I actually thought the String Theory was exemplified in Superman III when Richard Pryor himself put in the missing ingrediants to make green kryptonite and it became red krptonite instead.

Of course, red kryptonite made Superman be something he wasn’t, so kind of the same thing with saber stats when taken too seriously…

1 – Some metrics are created badly by guys trying to prove a theory and having to create a biased metric in an attempt to make a point that can’t be proven without metric meddling…

2 – Folks spouting Metrics they know nothing about, how they are constructed, and read off an Internet spreadsheet and were told tells a story they don’t really tell.

It’s kind of like String Theory in a way….

They take the KNOWN Equations and then throw in a few made up calculations to fill in the holes of the Physics equations they don’t know with things they can’t prove to balance the equation and call it an answer….

String Theory was dead in the water for awhile because they couldn’t get it all to add up until they decided Oh Wait there aren’t 10 dimensions lets add an 11th and then the Math works out….Doesn’t mean there are actually 11 Dimensions and the fact you can’t prove there isn’t doesn’t mean it does!

Sure it could be the answer to something but since they don’t really have a clue as to if those made up fillers actually correspond to reality in any way shape or form it’s really just balancing an equation with made up stuff that can’t be proven (or disproven) which means it could all be just a load of bunk.

Maybe it’s the theory of everything and if not its the theory of NOTHING!

Sure it uses real world known variables…and quite a few made up variables that could be untrue as well.

Until someone finds out that Theory of everything things like a true WAR metric are impossible to get right. Thinking OBP is more important than something else is just closed minded claptrap!

And to think getting on base and adding it to how many bases you get per OB EQUALLY is a good way of judging players especially ones who are hyper good in one area and bad in another is just hiding the story both OBP and SLG tell you and are significant in determining exactly what player your going to get!

Metrics like that work great in a stratomatic or computer simulated ball game but it never works on Grass!

Even avoiding the mashup and focusing on one stats does not bring the desired results.
Take Oakland who were all about getting high OBP players and in doing so had thier OBP decline year after year!

Remember when we got to college we (hopefully) went from memorizing facts to understanding and questioning their validity? Sounds like the same with those advanced stats as well – memorization without quantative understanding.

Know many claim they went from from memorizing traditional stats to questioning their validity to formulate their opinions as well. Understand the point many make, that by focusing on advanced analytical statistics they got to better understand why things happen. But I also feel many have not taken the next step after that and asked themselves how valid are these when it applies to knowing how the game is played, especially when seen in the context as how to what seems sound on paper does not play out as well when on the field because baseball is not a controlled substance but the outcome of human endevors that often contradict all logic.

A+B=C

What scientific principle is being illustrated there?

OBP is not the biggest factor in run scoring. Only 23% of OB ever results in an RS.

SLG may have some important because the higher it is the more bases you get per OB and therefore might drive in more runs per hit but your “SCIENTIFIC” principle counts both as EQUAL!

There is no science in OPS whatsoever you could just as easily add BA with SLG and get a much more accurate metric since SLG only applies to hits and OBP counts walks and HBP.

That would be a lot closer to scientific than that crap you guys think is a metric.

Scientific perhaps in other areas but not in baseball is what I meant but more to the point, the philosophy that scientific analysis beingthe end-all in controlled circumstances being applied to something completely non-controllable as the human element.

first off, you don’t even know how to calculate OPS. It’s just OBP plus SLUG. there is no divide by two. I don’t know where that came from.

secondly, all that does is combine the two biggest factors in run-scoring to give you a quick assessment of the player’s overall offensive value in terms of producing runs. It really works best when it’s very high or very low. A player with a career OPS of .900 or above with a decent amount of plate appearances, I don’t care who he is or what his other numbers are, he is hitting third or fourth for me and is an all star. A player who has a career OPS below .700 had better be Ozzie or Yadier defensively.
anything in the .700′s, I will need to see more numbers to get a better gauge of who your are as a player. .800′s you will also probably automatically be in my lineup because you either get on base at an elite rate, or hit for power at an elite rate, or a little of both, all of which have great value in a lineup.

and to say there’s nothing scientific about metrics, I don’t even know where to begin with a comment like that. That’s one of the most ignorant statements i’ve read on here.

I find nothing scientific about it.

What I see is a bunch of folks picking thier favorite stats, mashing them together in haphazard and unrelated ways and calling it a Saber….

for example the OPS stat….
Take OBP add SLG divide by two (as if SLG is Equal in strength to getting on base) and calling it a metric.

A guy with high OBP low SLG is as good as a guy with high SLG and lower OBP?

Really? So a slap singles hitter or a guy who walks a lot is the same or better than a power hitter who by being such drives in more runs?

Both metrics are unrelated and only share a marginal similarity “a BASE”. Yet they are sabermetrically mashed and used as if they are scientifically derived? NONSENSE!

Thats not science it’s just making up math examples that have no relation to the real world in thier calculations and the only basis in reality are the variables plugged into it using real world data.

And whats worse is when a metric doesn’t display the player they think it should they rejigger the weights to favor them and get them on the list…
Hence the bad and 15 ways of calculating WAR!

Both correct – it’s not only the small market financial attitude that is killing us but that method of play statistical mentality being enforced from the major league level down to that of A ball. Those attributes work fine in certain areas of business and law in which Sandy is well versed to handle but in the case of the Mets, Selig forced upon the Wilpons the work of an amateur better equipped to have stayed working for the commissioner instead.

Sabermetrics is the field of scientifically analyzing data in order to produce valid scientific knowledge. Well, original Met and winner of our first victory ever, Jay Hook, received a mechanical engineering degree from Northwestern. He was able to put down on paper the scientific dynamics of physics as to what enables a pitcher to throw a curve ball. OK, Jay had the knowledge of what causes the ball to curve – but had little success throwing it successfully himself.

Knowing why a curve ball curves does not mean one is qualified to either throw or teach it. Knowing a lot of advanced stats does not mean one is qualified to to be a judge on the game or teach it as well.

While everyone else is working on the assumption that once you hit the age of 30 your numbers decline…
this 38 year Old Pitcher has been improving EVERY YEAR since he turned 36!

Just look at the Bell Curve and you see he is getting better not worse and while people think winning a Cy Young might be as good as you can get as a pitcher will if 20 Wins on a team under .500 gets you that, how many would you win if you solved the problems of the HOLES by buying what you needed and keeping that guy and let him go for 30 Wins!

All this talk of trading Dickey is just people trying to find something the mets MIGHT do so they can beat thier chest later on how they picked it as opposed to talking about what the Mets SHOULD do which is keep Dickey, Go get the best Power RHB they can find and spend some damn money!